Granite State Future discussed at regional panel's meeting

By John Nolan

jnolan@fosters.com

fosters.com

By John Nolan

jnolan@fosters.com

Posted Nov. 24, 2012 at 3:15 AM

By John Nolan

jnolan@fosters.com

Posted Nov. 24, 2012 at 3:15 AM

ROCHESTER — With Granite State Future on the agenda of Strafford Regional Planning Commission last Thursday evening, and Tea Party opponents expected to attend in significant numbers, three Rochester police officers were in attendance at the Community Center for the start of the public meeting.

As things turned out, some opponents of the Granite State Future project did attend, but not the throng anticipated, and those who did speak (over the course of more than three hours), expressed their views with decorum and observed the three minute speaking rule. Their opinions were also countered by several other members of the public who expressed confidence in the work undertaken by the SRPC.

SRPC Executive Director Cynthia Copeland gave a lengthy presentation on Granite State Future and started out with a historical background, encapsulated on the website www.granitestatefuture.org.

“The regional planning commissions (RPCs) were formed by New Hampshire’s legislature in 1969 with a duty to prepare advisory regional plans and provide an opportunity for coordination among municipalities (RSA 36:45-48). Each RPC is tasked with working with local communities and seeking direct input from residents when developing the regional plan. The intent is to ensure a democratic process and to develop regional plans that reflect local voices. The plans created by each regional planning commission are advisory only, ensuring that local land use decisions remain local.

“Granite State Future is a statewide project among all of the RPCs coordinated by the Nashua Regional Planning Commission and funded through a grant of $3.37 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

“Granite State Future will reflect the New Hampshire Livability Principles, a set of concepts which will provide a common framework for all nine regional plans.“

Copeland went on to list the Livability Principles, with her slide again taken from the GSF website:

• Traditional Settlement Patterns & Development Design — keep the traditional New Hampshire landscape intact by focusing development in town centers and village areas, while leaving open and rural areas for agriculture, recreation, and other suitable uses.

• Housing Choices — ensure that everyone, no matter what their income level, has convenient and affordable choices in where they live. This includes a variety of housing options and ownership types that appeal to people at any stage of life and is convenient to where they work, shop, and play.

• Transportation Choices — provide a number of options that help people safely and efficiently get where they need to go, whether it is by walking, driving, biking, public transportation, carpooling, or taking a train or plane. Transportation networks should make it easy to get from one place to another, and should also allow the efficient movement of goods to support the economy (commercial freight, rail, and air transport).

• Natural Resource Functions & Quality — make sure that we protect New Hampshire’s beautiful natural landscape, which is home to all of us as well as a wide range of wildlife species. This includes protecting and improving the water we drink, the air we breathe, the forests we love, and the farmland that sustains us.

• Community and Economic Vitality — continue to make New Hampshire a great place in which to do business, raise a family, recreate, visit, and retire. Our neighborhoods and communities offer opportunities for an excellent education, good health, cultural happenings, and social connections.

• Climate Change and Energy Efficiency — identify opportunities to save energy and costs and reduce risks to our communities, businesses and citizens. In recent decades, New Hampshire has seen an increase in extreme storms and flooding coupled with steadily rising fuel and energy prices. How can we reduce dependence on outside sources of energy, construct homes and buildings that are more efficient, and reduce impacts to our communities and infrastructure from extreme storms and flooding?

Noting that Rochester had not signed on to Granite State Future, Copeland told the meeting, “Signing is not mandatory for inclusion in the regional master plan process.”

Public input

Jerry DeLemus, organizer of the Rochester 9-12 group, said, “Part of my concern is that the federal government in trying to contract with Nashua (the regional planning commission taking the lead on GSF). They are saying they have no control over local communities. This is deceptive.”

DeLemus maintained that centralized government already had a centralized plan developed which would trickle down.

“That is the theory. Where is the proof?” asked RPC member Victoria Parmele of Northwood.

“The money comes from Washington. The federal government is using Nashua as a front man. That is a problem. New Hampshire will lose its property rights,” said DeLemus.

Copeland said that no plan has been developed at this time, and that the regional plan from 2004 is the current blueprint.

Martha Titcomb-Spaulding, who had travelled from Salem to the meeting, asked what the developers, politicians and taxpayers were getting out of GSF.

Copeland responded. “I hope all citizens and businesses benefit from this plan.”

Nancy Kindler from Epping said, “The project is too huge. It is nationwide from California to Maine and it’s been going on a long time. Where is the money coming from? China owns us, or just about. People are scared to death of Granite State Future. It is like tentacles.”

Parmele asked Kindler to do wider research.

David Cope of Rochester said, “I feel like New Hampshire is being forced to accept this. How do you decide what communities do not want this vision implemented in their community?”

Copeland said that data from every community was included.

“We will include Rochester’s master plan within our plan,” she said, and noting Cope’s point that Rochester City Council had recently voted down involvement in GSF, she added, “We are respectful of Rochester’s decision, but they want us to be involved with other projects.”

She gave as examples, transport, economic development and broadband. Earlier, it was said that SRPC was also involved in the decision to locate a training facility for workers at the Lilac Mall, before Safran goes into production in Granite State Business Park, behind Skyhaven Airport.

DeLemus said that Washington was out of touch with local communities, and he added, “HUD’s manna from heaven is coming from the taxpayers.”

Copeland, earlier, said that “Neither HUD nor Nashua Regional Planning Commission has control over the final content of the regional plan adopted by Strafford Regional Planning Commission.”

She said HUD’s role is to review the plan, but it cannot mandate its content.

She gave as examples of the projects that SRPC is, or has recently been, involved in — the Little Bay Bridge from Newington to Dover, the Spaulding Turnpike upgrade, COAST bus route expansion, and, in Rochester, the hazard mitigation plan, and helping the city be eligible for funding for the water-sewer expansion in the Route 125 north area, which is intended to facilitate industrial and commercial expansion.

For more information on Granite State Future, visit www.strafford.org. To read more on the viewpoint that the smart growth and sustainable development movement is linked to the United Nations, try www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_32529.php.